Adjectivism

[Dyothelite]

For a professor I am composing my fourth book, and I am attempting to compare quantum physical reality and certain religious comncepts involving subject/object perceptual illusion. I'd be interested in feedback on my ideas to begin.

At first this may seem like its in the wrong forum, but it is at its base a attempt at reconciling some religious practices with modern physics.

You have to be familiar with my work to appreciate this but I'll explain it well. My work is called Qualitative Non-Pluralism which is concerned with liberating the mind from dualistic/pluralistic subject and object frames of reference by defining the universe as a universal non-plurality containing qualitative existences but not pluralistic essences. In other words things merely qualitatively exist, not inherently exist. Like, if I see a table, science will show the inherent existence of the table as separate from its environment is an illusion because it is merely a particular arrangement of matter and energy intertwined with its environment, but it still has the observable qualities of a table. Therefore it has qualitative existence as a table not inherent separate existence. The same applies to stars, galaxies and my sense of self.

Ok now, take the word adjective, besides the obvious fact that in noun form it defines qualities, Adjectivism can also be used to define the whole school of thought I am advocating (not to mention it is easier to say than Qualitative Non-Pluralism). The adjective form of the word “adjective” means (among other things) "not standing alone, or dependent".

Object= a thing presented (thrown to).
Subject= to be presented (thrown to) beneath, (or where object is presented)
Adject= to add to (or "to throw to" in addition)

All these words come from the same root, jacere (to throw to).

Where Object, Objectivism, Objective, all refer to a limited independent state of existence, and Subject, Subjective and Subjectivism all refer to the observance of a limited independent "observer" being presented (or thrown to) an object, Adject, Adjective, and Adjectivism (my new word) all refer to the addition and synthesis (adject) of subject and object, and in itself means dependently originating, thus blurring the duality of subject and object.

Rather than the pluralistic worldview of subjects and objects, Adjectivism is the synthesis of all independent existences into a dependently originating system of universal one-ness. Therefore, Adjectivism, is the reconciliation of subject and object duality by realizing the inherent dependent nature of non-dual/non-plural reality.

The third reason is as such: in our subject and object orientated sentence structure we use nouns to define objects (ie. person place or things) which suggests an inherent plurality. What is an object? Well technically, it is merely a specific configuration of particles inter-meshed in a universal non-plurality that is the universe itself. So when you are calling something by a descriptive name, the noun is more like an adjective than a noun. A noun defines objective inherent existence, but we are describing the arrangement of particles not an object. Therefore, the noun "table" becomes an adjective when we realize it is an adjective describing the particular frequency and arrangement of matter and energy. It is very similar to colors. Red and Blue can be adjectives but as nouns we are merely describing the particular wavelength and frequency of light waves.

As a mental exercise, look at the objects in the room around you and then realize those nouns are merely adjectives describing the particular arrangement of non-pluralistic universe around you. It literally forces your mind to see through the illusory pluralistic worldview and see objects as different arrangements of the same non-pluralistic universe.

Adjectivism= the preoccupation with the dependently originating reality of the non-pluralistic universe.

Objectivism= the preoccupation with the inherent independent and plural reality of individual objects relative to an observer.

Subjectivism= the preoccupation with the plurality of independent objects relative to the independent subjective observer from the point of view of the subject.

Therefore, Adjectivism is the reconciliation of subject and object duality/plurality by realizing the dependently originating reality of the universe, including the observer (subject) and observed (object).

Adjectivism parallels quantum theory.
Proof:
ex. I am looking at a table.
An objectivist says: The table creates reality because it reflects light waves and that dictates its existence.
A Subjectivist says: No I create the reality of the table because it is my eyes and brain that dictate the existence of the table.
An Adjectivist says: No both are valid, in is in the adject (addition) of the subject and object that dictates reality.
Quantum Theory: The quantum event alone does not dictate reality, the observer alone does not dictate reality, it is the union of observer and observed that dictates reality.

Therefore, Adjectivism parallels quantum reality.

Sorry for the length

[Southtown]

That's not long. That's probably the perfect length for an opening post, I think.

I am not smart enough to shed any light on the subject, but if my nose serves me, you and Doctordick may be saying similar things in different languages.

Check out some of his earlier posts. He is more candid, I think, the further back in time you go. Try searching his threads, oldest first.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Dyothelite

...snip...I am attempting to compare quantum physical reality and certain religious comncepts involving subject/object perceptual illusion. I'd be interested in feedback on my ideas to begin.

At first this may seem like its in the wrong forum, but it is at its base a attempt at reconciling some religious practices with modern physics.
...snip...

I must have missed the religious concepts somewhere hidden in your text. It seems more anthropomorphic, based on the so-called anthropic principle.

Where in religion is anything involving subject/object perceptual illusion mentioned? Which religious practice(s) are you attempting to reconcile with modern physics?

[Dyothelite]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

I must have missed the religious concepts somewhere hidden in your text. It seems more anthropomorphic, based on the so-called anthropic principle.

Where in religion is anything involving subject/object perceptual illusion mentioned? Which religious practice(s) are you attempting to reconcile with modern physics?

The religious concepts I will be comparing are Eastern primarily. I will analyzing the role of the observer in reality, especially in Buddhist contexts but also in different schools of Vedantic Hinduism and Taoism. The Buddhist concept of Anatman (or no-self) is of particular interest to me.

The dissolution of subject/object perception is also integral to most schools of Hinduism and especially Buddhism. The attempt is to reunite with an awareness of the one-ness of the universe. The word yoga is directly derived from this concept.

Also I want to compare the theoretical universal quantum interconnectedness of the universe (don't jump on me I said "theoretcal") along with other interconnectedness theories like string theory and such with the religious concepts of universal interconnectedness which are prevalent primaarily in Eastern religions.

Because these concepts are primarily meditation based schools of thought, I will only be focusing a little on Hebrew Qabalah, maybe Sufism, and some Christian theologians, but the focus will be primarily on Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism schools of mediatation and cosmology.

The role of the observer in reality, the dissolution of subject/object perception, and universal interconnectedness is the the central theme in Hindusim, Buddhism and Taoism, and this is my focus.

It's been done before, but I want to expand and explore a little deeper.

[coldcreation]

Thanks for the explanation.

A friend of mine wrote a book, published a year or two ago. Sounds like it's along a similar line as your work (albeit with differences).

Here is a link to ZARATHOUSTRA-BOUDDHA, Vers un lexique commun, Suivi de Naissance et spéculations sur la philosophie de Dionysos
Christian Globensky
La philosophie en commun
PHILOSOPHIE SPIRITUALITÉ

There is only one paragraph explanation and it's in French.

I just found another link with a couple of pages worth of info. This looks more interesting than the link above, it's an interview with Globe'n'sky. I hope you payed attention in high school French class.

Let me know what you think. Globensky can also be found in search engines under the aka Globe'n'Sky.

CC

[HydrogenBond]

If I was to imagine something in my mind, that is not yet in reality, i.e., a hot microwave pizza, and I make the image a reality, is this subjectivism spawning adjectivism? A pure objectivist could never make a pizza for themselves because they have no subjectists foundation to create a new adjective connection for their objectivity.

[Southtown]

Hello! Hahahah! That's hilarious.

By the way, Google can translate web pages to and from many languages.

ZARATHOUSTRA-BOUDDHA

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Southtown

Hello! Hahahah! That's hilarious.

By the way, Google can translate web pages to and from many languages.

ZARATHOUSTRA-BOUDDHA

Thanks for the English version.

I do not understand what you find hilarious.

Please explain what it is you find so funny?

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Thanks for the English version.

I do not understand what you find hilarious.

Please explain what it is you find so funny?

Sorry. I thought Hydrogen's post was funny.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Dyothelite

snip... It's been done before, but I want to expand and explore a little deeper.

Dyothelite, have you checked out Globe'n'sky yet?

If so let me know what you think.

Thanks

CC